Subject: Bleaching and redevelopment
The developing discussion, or, Chlorox II, anyone? >From: DWNPPH [at] ritvax__isc__rit__edu >Subject: Bleaching and redevelopment >Does the institution control the purpose of the object? Case in point: >The Canadian Archives bought a large amount of Karsh's work. Before >they bought them, the objects were considered to be works of fine art. >Now, because the photographs belong to an archive (collecting items of >historical value), are the prints now archival objects (information >only) or have they retained their status as "fine art"? All of these >were issues that came-up during the research of this chemical treatment. I have to think that too fine a point is being drawn here. The items in question can have both attributes simultaneously. Certainly, the Alexander Gardener and Margaret Bourke White portfolios in our collections are regarded as both. As such, they would not be subjected to restorative treatment. Rather, we copy, using appropriate lighting and filtration. Certainly one faces a rather more difficult decision with esthetically appealing works of a photographer of marginal reputation. Might that worker be "discovered"? Might the market value rise? Might the trustees grow restive were they to think that potential deaccession value was being risked? Granted, much can be lost, lacking the metering equipment to monitor gelatin swelling. Yet information is potentially regained, from the type of cityscape or general view that I think might benefit. >In fact, all chemical treatments are in question. For example, there >are many processes for chemically removing the silver mirroring on >photographs, but should it be done? A prominent restorator locally is using such a treatment. I had a rather unpleasant discussion with him on this topic, in which I suggested that his usage of this treatment, without so informing his patron, was rather unethical. (I should note that the individual in question is a photo- grapher, not an archivist or conservator.) He was quite blithe on the point, noting that he wouldn't be there to hear about the consequences, and that he would have a file negative of the restored item, and could re- print, for a fee, any time the patron requested. I don't think that anyone in our professions would suggest this course of treatment. Michael McCormick Western Reserve Historical Society *** Conservation DistList Instance 5:17 Distributed: Saturday, August 31, 1991 Message Id: cdl-5-17-001 ***Received on Tuesday, 27 August, 1991